LGBT history lessons heading for California classrooms

[Prokne]

This seems like a mistake to me. History should be taught by prominence, not by ethnicity or sexual orientation. I'm worried that these changes - and other changes similar to them - will really just have the effect of separating and classifying people even more, creating more social divisions that will come back to bite us in the end.

Members of the LGBT community should be taught that US history is their history. Not that they have their own special corner where they can sit and hear about some random San Francisco politician. Furthermore, many schools already have classes that people who are interested can take, which specifically look at gender and sexuality.

Thoughts on this?

How do you decide what is more prominent? While large events like a world war have large impacts on many people, some more isolated events can have a larger impact on a smaller group of people. Usually that smaller group of people are the ones learning about the more detailed history. For example, San Francisco mayor Harvey Milk would not be as important a historical figure in Florida as he is in California. There is also a very large gay community in the state.

I also don't think that adding a few lessons on LGBT issues and history is going to displace something vitally important to everyone. It's not going to be like, "were going to cut out the history of World War 2 to teach about Harvey Milk." From when I was in school, there was way too much time spent on the causes and events in a war. The individual battles and strategies in a war are really not that important unless you are in a military academy.

[Deleted]

No, you are right, Agesilaus lounging for the kisses of a bishonen is totally not gay.

Ancient Greeks didn't really have a concept of sexuality if memory serves me...

[Reeve]

I know that in a finite amount of time, if I had to teach students about Einstein, Hitler, Ghandi, Bolivar, Lenin or Bruce Jenner, I'd obviously want to work in Jenner's contribution to society. And you wonder why America is falling behind in education. Instead of ensuring students have the skill set and awareness of history, we need to explain why genitalia you like to play with defines who you are, and why some guy who marched is vital to western society.

I don't really buy the "limited time" argument. I mean I learned about black history every year for 8 years in a row in public schools. We spent a stupid amount of time doing bullshit worksheets with things like word finds on them. We covered manifest destiny and the American migration westward at least five times. We did the industrial revolution at least twice, if you don't count incidental mentions. Admittedly, ancient history tended to speak mostly about the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians to the exclusion of he Persians, but if the school system had deemed the Persians important, we'd have had plenty of time for them too. Yet in spite of all that, we still managed to hit all the highlights of world history and American history. Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Mongols, a little Chinese (not enough), India, the Black Plague, medieval Europe, Venice, DaVinci, English Revolution, French Revolution, the Rennaissance, the Enlightenment, including Hobbes, Locke, and Voltaire, the conquest of the New World, American History, the World Wars, Spanish American War, Vietnam, the Red Scare, etc. etc. we covered all of that, and still had time left over for bullshit word searches and covering the same topic multiple times.

I don't believe history classes are pressed for time, unless they're wasting time on bullshit.

[Underverse]

No, you are right, Agesilaus lounging for the kisses of a bishonen is totally not gay.

It's not. Colloquially sure, but factually - no. In many societies, including Greek societies, older males would act as mentors (sexually, intellectually) to younger males. They would still fuck women and have families.

'Gay' (and 'straight, for that matter) are constructs fabricated by a culture that until very recently condemned all form of homosexual behavior, resulting in a drastic polarization of sexual behavior in the interest of self-protection. But if you step out of the developed world, you'll see that different cultures show different manifestations of homosexuality, far from all of which can be considered 'gay'.

- - - Updated - - -

forum censorship prevents me from commenting further

get infracted again for stating an opinion backed by overwhelming statistics

Yeah no. I've never been infracted for my statements on transexuality. It's all about phrasing.

[Theodarzna]

I don't really buy the "limited time" argument. I mean I learned about black history every year for 8 years in a row in public schools. We spent a stupid amount of time doing bullshit worksheets with things like word finds on them. We covered manifest destiny and the American migration westward at least five times. We did the industrial revolution at least twice, if you don't count incidental mentions. Admittedly, ancient history tended to speak mostly about the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians to the exclusion of he Persians, but if the school system had deemed the Persians important, we'd have had plenty of time for them too. Yet in spite of all that, we still managed to hit all the highlights of world history and American history. Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Mongols, a little Chinese (not enough), India, the Black Plague, medieval Europe, Venice, DaVinci, English Revolution, French Revolution, the Rennaissance, the Enlightenment, including Hobbes, Locke, and Voltaire, the conquest of the New World, American History, the World Wars, Spanish American War, Vietnam, the Red Scare, etc. etc. we covered all of that, and still had time left over for bullshit word searches and covering the same topic multiple times.

I don't believe history classes are pressed for time, unless they're wasting time on bullshit.

Have you ever taught a History class?

[Underverse]

I support LGBT in any way that makes sense, but I originally frowned at this.

My first thought was, "This is like teaching the history of everyone who has blue eyes. An interesting way to cross-section the events of history, but not valuable for elementary school history."

But then I realized that this is much different from that. For California specifically, much of the state's history was shaped by people who were gay. And they had to overcome huge obstacles in order to do so. And suddenly, I realized this is as valuable as any other historical lesson.

Took a while, but I eventually saw why it was valuable.

'Much' is a bit of an overstatement. Some of recent history - sure.

[Reeve]

I support LGBT in any way that makes sense, but I originally frowned at this.

My first thought was, "This is like teaching the history of everyone who has blue eyes. An interesting way to cross-section the events of history, but not valuable for elementary school history."

But then I realized that this is much different from that. For California specifically, much of the state's history was shaped by people who were gay. And they had to overcome huge obstacles in order to do so. And suddenly, I realized this is as valuable as any other historical lesson.

Took a while, but I eventually saw why it was valuable.

Also, blue eyed people didn't have to fight a civil rights battle due to oppression as a result of their eye color.

[Serpha]

So you have English children but hate the English?

It takes more than to be born here to make you English.

[Imnick]

It's not. Colloquially sure, but factually - no. In many societies, including Greek societies, older males would act as mentors (sexually, intellectually) to younger males. They would still fuck women and have families.

'Gay' (and 'straight, for that matter) are constructs fabricated by a culture that until very recently condemned all form of homosexual behavior, resulting in a drastic polarization of sexual behavior in the interest of self-protection. But if you step out of the developed world, you'll see that different cultures show different manifestations of homosexuality, far from all of which can be considered 'gay'.

I agree with you about what you are saying, but not why you are saying it? Like, I feel this might be a little bit pedantic on your part?
Showing that cultures across history have had different views about sexuality sounds like a valuable thing to include in education! But, apparently we can't, because it's not included in the "G" of LGBT?
This is exactly the thing that should be taught, surely?

It seems like you are actually providing very good reasons why these things should be taught in school, to reinforce the idea that the status quo of current culture isn't actually any kind of natural law, that it has changed and could change again.

[Reeve]

Have you ever taught a History class?

No, but I've been in many. And I don't think it's fair to try to invalidate my perspective because I haven't taught a class on the subject.

[sethman75]

What business does an 8 year old have being force fed an agenda solely based on sexuality?

I weep for the kids of tommorow.

I really hope that the people responsible for this are held accountable when they realise that they fucked up a generation of kids to validate their own existence.

[Manhands]

Also, blue eyed people didn't have to fight a civil rights battle due to oppression as a result of their eye color.

Please read my entire post before arguing with the first thing you read.

[Deleted]

It takes more than to be born here to make you English.

They were born and raised in England with presumably English citizenship thus they're England or shall I now declare myself Scottish because my dads side are Scottish?

[Manhands]

'Much' is a bit of an overstatement. Some of recent history - sure.

You just hit the nail on the head: much is a subjective word.

Did you just have to find SOMETHING to disagree with? Is that important?

[Rooflesstoofless]

My oldest daughter is heading into the second grade. She already has questions about gays and lesbians.

I just tell her that men can love men and women can love women the same way her mom and dad love each other. Probably one of the easier lessons to teach a kid.

[Underverse]

How do you decide what is more prominent? While large events like a world war have large impacts on many people, some more isolated events can have a larger impact on a smaller group of people. Usually that smaller group of people are the ones learning about the more detailed history. For example, San Francisco mayor Harvey Milk would not be as important a historical figure in Florida as he is in California. There is also a very large gay community in the state.

I also don't think that adding a few lessons on LGBT issues and history is going to displace something vitally important to everyone. It's not going to be like, "were going to cut out the history of World War 2 to teach about Harvey Milk." From when I was in school, there was way too much time spent on the causes and events in a war. The individual battles and strategies in a war are really not that important unless you are in a military academy.

It doesn't make sense to teach an entire school Russian history because you have 3 Russian exchange students. So when it comes to prominence, I would say that the number of people affected outweighs an individuals particularly strong feelings on the matter.

But that aside, my main concern is the divisions this kind of policy will propagate. American history is LGBT history. This isn't an 'us and them' situation, nor should it be made out to be one.

[Reeve]

Please read my entire post before arguing with the first thing you read.

I did. And I wasn't arguing with you. I was commenting on the analogy.

[Deleted]

What business does an 8 year old have being force fed an agenda solely based on sexuality?

I weep for the kids of tommorow.

I really hope that the people responsible for this are held accountable when they realise that they fucked up a generation of kids to validate their own existence.

People keep saying LGBT Agenda but never explain what it is

[Imnick]

What business does an 8 year old have being force fed an agenda solely based on sexuality?

I think there's definitely someone with an agenda here...
Where did anyone say that all they are going to be taught is about LGBT people, and nothing else?

(Plus if we're being pedantic, LGBT covers things other than sexuality)

[Theodarzna]

No, but I've been in many. And I don't think it's fair to try to invalidate my perspective because I haven't taught a class on the subject.

Congrats, you've never had to craft lesson plans or plan a course but you're an expert and know for sure that time constraints are not a thing 'cause you took some history classes.

I have and do every semester. Time constraints are the biggest worry, and I'm teaching at the college level and JC level, or preparing curriculum for other over tasked adjuncts. Survey courses are very difficult balancing acts since your trying to cover like 50 topics with enough depth.

If schools would just offer topical lens classes (High Schools anyway) it would be fine. Like a "History of Civil Rights," AP course or even a required one, I'd be all for it, but teaching Survey Courses is hard enough as is.